Conector Juspronto

Dados para a peça

dados_para_peca

Read-only

Devolve o contrato de dados de um tipo de peça num processo: partes com qualificação e FONTE, campos faltantes, peças essenciais a ler, o checklist processual do tipo, preferências de redação e peças-modelo do escritório. Use no início da redação de uma peça, antes de ler os autos.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "processoId": "<processoId>",
      "tipoPeca": "<tipoPeca>"
    },
    "name": "dados_para_peca"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tipoPeca`	Yes	Tipo da peça (tipos com checklist: contestação trabalhista, manifestação, recurso ordinário, manifestação sobre laudo, réplica, contrarrazões)
`processoId`	Yes	ID do processo (obtenha via buscar_processos)
`parteRepresentada`	No	Nome da parte que o escritório representa, se o advogado já indicou (opcional)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pasta`	No
`frescor`	No
`processoId`	No
`cnjFormatado`	No
`avisoConteudo`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "avisoConteudo": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cnjFormatado": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "frescor": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "properties": {
+            "andamentosAte": {
+              "anyOf": [
+                {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                {
+                  "type": "null"
+                }
+              ]
+            },
+            "atosDepoisDosAutos": {
+              "items": {
+                "additionalProperties": {},
+                "properties": {
+                  "andamentoId": {
+                    "type": "string"
+                  },
+                  "data": {
+                    "type": "string"
+                  },
+                  "descricao": {
+                    "type": "string"
+                  }
+                },
+                "type": "object"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            },
+            "autosAte": {
+              "anyOf": [
+                {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                {
+                  "type": "null"
+                }
+              ]
+            },
+            "aviso": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "djenAte": {
+              "anyOf": [
+                {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                {
+                  "type": "null"
+                }
+              ]
+            },
+            "truncado": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "pasta": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "processoId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the content model, including that party data carries a FONTE and that missing fields are flagged — important trust context for a legal-drafting input. No auth or rate-limit notes, but those are not central here.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the full payload description, the second gives the usage timing. Nothing is repeated from schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return format, and it correctly frames the tool's role in the drafting workflow. Minor gap: the enum note says 'tipos com checklist' while the description asserts a checklist is always returned, leaving the no-checklist case ambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented, including the enum of peça types and the hint to obtain processoId via buscar_processos. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating 'tipo de peça num processo', so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb and resource: 'Devolve o contrato de dados de um tipo de peça num processo', then enumerates the payload (partes com qualificação e FONTE, campos faltantes, peças essenciais, checklist, preferências, peças-modelo). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like buscar_autos or montar_contexto without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit timing: 'Use no início da redação de uma peça, antes de ler os autos', which establishes ordering against the reading tools. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when not to use it (e.g. mid-drafting vs preparar_secao_minuta), so not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Conector Juspronto tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?